BHAKTIBAI MOHANLAL PATEL Vs. PARI VITHALDAS GOPALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. P. V. Nanavaty who appears for judgment debtors Nos. 3 and 5 has argued the cases of these two judgment debtors on different lines. So far as opponent No. 5 is concerned she was neither a party to the suit nor to the decree which the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad passed However after the decree was transferred to the Civil Court at Narol and the decree holder filed the darkhast he made an application Ex. 6 for joining opponent No. 5 (Kankaben) as a party. The Executing CoUrt ordered her to be joined as a party to the darkhast and issued interim injunction against her also.

(2.) MR. Nanavaty has contended before me that the transferee Court has no jurisdiction to join a party to the execution proceedings. In that behalf he has relied upon Sec. 42 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-secs. (2) (3) and (4) have been newly added to sec. 42. Sub-sec. (1) provides that the Court which executes a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself It further provides that all persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such Court it the same manner as if it had passed the decree. Sub-sec (2) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) expressly specifies which powers the transferee Court shall have while executing the decree transferred to it for execution. Sub-sec. (3) provides that the transferee Court shall send a copy of any order made by it under sub-sec. (2) to the Court which passed the decree. Sub-sec. (4) is material for the purpose of the present case. It provides as follows: